Ps3 to load discs slower than the 360?

[블라스]

Before I get any smartass comments, let me all remind you that I am not anti-Sony, so shove it.
I just found this interesting.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/04/ps3-to-load-games-slower-than-the-xbox-360/

Discuss.

 

[batman7289]

i was going to get a ps3 but after i saw the price i said hell no
i dont kare how old the disc take to load
as long as the graphics are good

 

[Shodan]

This is especially interesting when you taking into account all the crap people have been talking about Resistance being totally uncompressed (don't tell them that it still needs to be compressed to fit into RAM, they'll get upset).

Xbox360 has 8 times the RAM, while only three times the DVD read speed compared to the original Xbox.
PS3 has 12 times the RAM while having less than double the read speed compared to the original PS2.

Notice that those numbers don't match up, how they aren't 1:1? That means that without using some form of lossless, on-the-fly compression/decompression (something both the Nintendo Wii and Xbox360 are doing), load times will be longer this gen than they were last gen. With the PS3, if you take the crap about nothing being compressed seriously (you shouldn't), you are either going to experience severe visual quality loss or severe load time increases. That means one of two things for PS3 games. Either developers will use the space on the Blu-Ray disc simply because it's there, and deliver longer loading times or damanged visual quality, or developers (this one is much more likely) will behave exactly as they would if they had been using DVD9s, meaning that game quality will not be affected in the slightest by the inclusion of a Blu-Ray reader in the PS3, meaning that $200 was tacked onto the machine for no good reason. Either way you spin it, this should hopefully put an end to all the crap about 22gb games and totally uncompressed PS3 titles.

 

[imdaly]

This is especially interesting when you taking into account all the crap people have been talking about Resistance being totally uncompressed (don't tell them that it still needs to be compressed to fit into RAM, they'll get upset).

Xbox360 has 8 times the RAM, while only three times the DVD read speed compared to the original Xbox.
PS3 has 12 times the RAM while having less than double the read speed compared to the original PS2.

Notice that those numbers don't match up, how they aren't 1:1? That means that without using some form of lossless, on-the-fly compression/decompression (something both the Nintendo Wii and Xbox360 are doing), load times will be longer this gen than they were last gen. With the PS3, if you take the crap about nothing being compressed seriously (you shouldn't), you are either going to experience severe visual quality loss or severe load time increases. That means one of two things for PS3 games. Either developers will use the space on the Blu-Ray disc simply because it's there, and deliver longer loading times or damanged visual quality, or developers (this one is much more likely) will behave exactly as they would if they had been using DVD9s, meaning that game quality will not be affected in the slightest by the inclusion of a Blu-Ray reader in the PS3, meaning that $200 was tacked onto the machine for no good reason. Either way you spin it, this should hopefully put an end to all the crap about 22gb games and totally uncompressed PS3 titles.

...I don't even know why I'm getting this hunch but......


...is that you, Denton??

 

[Shodan]

Who?

 

[Topdawg]

A comparison of Blu-ray's constant read speed to DVD's variable read speed at each X rating.

If they compress the games, it would load alot faster.
but i guess i'll find out on November 17th if it loads slow or not.

 

[Shodan]

Notice the Xbox360's 12x speed rating higher than the PS3's 2x speed.

 

[Axid]

 

[Shodan]

That chart is no where near as bad as his sig-picture, it's 1000 words of logical fallacy

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

Dude this is more Bull s88t to slam sony, I got the article off of PS3today and they won't allow you to post anything good about Sony unless its bad. I think this is absolute bull because look at E3, the PS3 took like a second or two to load Gran Turismo, and Resistace, and Heavenly Sword....I don't think this is true:

 

[Shodan]

I guess your inability to realize the truth would matter a bit more if someone hadn't already done the math for you and realized that yes, it is indeed true

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

^Sorry I just skipped everyone's posts and just decided to post, I don't really care about this crap and I hate how everyone thinks its the end of the world that oh its going to have a longer loading time, who cares it gives you a break from gaming. When you're playing Resistance you're going to spend like an hour on each level so its good to just look at a load screen and maybe get up and stretch or get some food I don't know.

I'm just going to wait and see what the PS3 has to offer, I mean people are going to be feeding us BS and all of the Xbots are going to be hooked lined and sinkered into believeing all of this. Wait until PS3 can come out and prove what its capable of. Until then screw all of this non-sense.

 

[Aran]

You shouldn't lie JC Denton, there's a difference between the x12 speed of a DVD drive and a X2 speed of a BR ray drive.

I don't know what the final drive speed the PS3 will have but since it will basically be one of (if not THE) first B.R. player on the market, it is almost guarenteed it will only be a 2x at most.

From these tests, it's quite obviouse that the "faster loading time's" a lot of people seem to think the PS3 will have due to it's blueRay drive over the 360, is infact, false.


It's an interesting read. I learned something new today.




There seems to be a bit of confusion about Blu-ray's read speeds in
comparison to DVD's read speeds specially given the Xbox 360's 12x DVD
rating. I am going to attempt to clarify the differences.

The first
difference that should be noted in a DVD vs Blu-ray discussion is that
DVD's are Constant Angular Velocity (CAV) and Blu-ray is Constant
Linear Velocity (CLV).

CAV: The drives transfer rate is
variable. Information on the inside tracks of the disc is read at
approximately half the speed as the information on the outside of the
disc.

CLV: The drives transfer speed is linear or
constant regardless of whether information is on the inside tracks of
the disc or the outside.

This is important to note because each of DVD's X ratings have a minimum and a maximum read speed and the advertised read speed is taken from the maximum, consequently a DVD drives maximum read speed is almost never realized. On the other hand Blu-ray's only has one constant read speed:

Another
important note about CAV drives (e.g. DVD) is that because information
on a disc is written from the inside to the outside the X rating is
never realized unless the disc is entirely full.


Example:

The maximum read speed of a disc that is only half full on a
12x drive is only 12MBps compared to the drives maximum of 16.5MBps.

The comparison


Mb = megabits
MB =megabytes

Blu-ray 1x: 36Mbps / 4.5MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

Blu-ray 2x: 72Mbp / 8MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

Blu-ray 3x: 108Mbps / 13.5MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

Blu-ray 4x: 144MBps / 18MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

At 2x Blu-ray can read as fast as 12x DVD's minimum read speed. At just
3x Blu-ray is comparable to DVD at 12x; through the first half of the
disc 3x Blu-ray is faster, through the second half of the disc 12x DVD
is faster.
And at only 4x Blu-ray manages to best a 12x DVD's maximum read speed
by 9%.





http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

BR devs will probably take up that extra space by duplicating data to reduce seek times.

 

[imdaly]

A comparison of Blu-ray's constant read speed to DVD's variable read speed at each X rating.

If they compress the games, it would load alot faster.
but i guess i'll find out on November 17th if it loads slow or not.

That would be nice, wouldn't it, if the PS3's BR drive went to 12x speed, but it doesn't. It maxes at 2x...so here's the more accurate chart for ya...

Not so impressive now, is it?

Dude this is more Bull s88t to slam sony, I got the article off of PS3today and they won't allow you to post anything good about Sony unless its bad. I think this is absolute bull because look at E3, the PS3 took like a second or two to load Gran Turismo, and Resistace, and Heavenly Sword....I don't think this is true:

It's just a shame those games were most likely played off of a hard drive and not a disc, where loading times would be much much different.

 

[Shodan]

You shouldn't lie Denton, there's a difference between the x12 speed of a DVD drive and a X2 spped of a BR ray drive.

What difference would that be? That the 12x is faster than the 2x? There's no other relevant differences between them. Hence why math has been done, charts have been drawn up, articles have been posted, and everything still points towards the 12x being faster. Try again.


EDIT: A flash edit? Hmm. Anyways, gamespot is wrong.

Admittedly, Blu-Ray looks dicey from several non-capacity angles. Blu-Ray movies require a 1.5x Blu-Ray drive, or 54Mbits/second. Sony announced that PS3 uses a 2x BD drive, which is 72Mbits/second or 9MB/second. The Xbox360 uses a 12x DVD, which should give it about 16MB/second. That is significantly faster for games and will result in shorter load times. And that 12x DVD drive should be a whole lot cheaper. (Note that the PS3 drive will do 8x DVD, and even that is faster than 2x BD.)

link

Somehow I think he'd know just a tad bit more about it than you and gamespot.

Just for reference, 8x is the fastest drive speed the 360 can do while reading a dual layer DVD, that means the slowest the 360 will ever go is, in the words of the former head of developer relations at Sony, a guy who would know the hardware inside and out, faster than the fastest speeds the PS3 can reach while using a Blu-Ray disc.

 

[Aran]

It's misleading, but yes x12 DVD speed is faster.

 

[Axid]

^Sorry I just skipped everyone's posts and just decided to post, I don't really care about this crap and I hate how everyone thinks its the end of the world that oh its going to have a longer loading time, who cares it gives you a break from gaming. When you're playing Resistance you're going to spend like an hour on each level so its good to just look at a load screen and maybe get up and stretch or get some food I don't know.

I'm just going to wait and see what the PS3 has to offer, I mean people are going to be feeding us BS and all of the Xbots are going to be hooked lined and sinkered into believeing all of this. Wait until PS3 can come out and prove what its capable of. Until then screw all of this non-sense.

Xbots can believe?

 

[Aran]

What difference would that be? That the 12x is faster than the 2x? There's no other relevant differences between them. Hence why math has been done, charts have been drawn up, articles have been posted, and everything still points towards the 12x being faster. Try again.


EDIT: A flash edit? Hmm. Anyways, gamespot is wrong.



link

Somehow I think he'd know just a tad bit more about it than you and gamespot.

Just for reference, 8x is the fastest drive speed the 360 can do while reading a dual layer DVD, that means the slowest the 360 will ever go is, in the words of the former head of developer relations at Sony, a guy who would know the hardware inside and out, faster than the fastest speeds the PS3 can reach while using a Blu-Ray disc.

No need to act like a condecending *******, big man.

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

^hahahaha I laughed at that picture. Yeah I forgot about that imdaly that they were running the games off of demos and things like that

 

[Shodan]

No need to act like a condecending *******, big man.

What was condecending about it? Because I informed you of why I was right and why you and gamespot were wrong? Would it have been a little more acceptable if I said "oh well the facts seem to disagree with you, but uh, erm, I'm sure there's a good explanation, just because you're not right doesn't mean that you're wrong dear"?

 

[Aran]

You have issues. :|

 

[Topdawg]

i have just noticed you never post anything news worthy, you always come in threads with ******ed comments.
just leave this thread, if your gonna off-topic that easy.

 

[Shodan]

You have issues. :|

Says the person that thinks any attempt at showing them why they're wrong is "condescending".

 

[Topdawg]

That chart is no where near as bad as his sig-picture, it's 1000 words of logical fallacy

So you clicked? which just proves your a xbot.
way to self-own yourself.

and that link in my sig 100% true.

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

hahahaha awesome sig Topdawg I never looked at it.